« PreviousContinue »
account of his orthodoxy, see Cramer, vol. vi. p. 490, ss., Baur, p. 205. [Pulleyn says, the Redeemer must suffer, in part because this was necessary to our redemption (though we might have been redeemed in some other way), in part, as an example to us in the endurance of suffering. But the price of redemption was paid, not to the devil, which is impossible; but to God.] Peter Lombard, more than any of the other scholastics, regarded the subject in question from the psychologico-moral point of view (see Baur, p. 209), Sent. Lib. iii. Dist. 19: A. Quomodo a peccatis per ejus mortem soluti sumus? Quia per ejus mortem, ut ait Apostolus, commendatur nobis caritas Dei, i. e, apparet eximia et commendabilis caritas Dei erga nos in hoc, quod filium suum tradidit in mortem pro nobis peccatoribus. Exhibita autem tantæ erga nos dilectionis arrha et nos movemur accendimurque ad diligendum Deum, qui pro nobis tanta fecit, et per hoc justificamur, i. e., soluti a peccatis justi efficimur. Mors ergo Christi nos justificat, dum per eam caritas excitatur in cordibus nostris.-Peter Lombard decidedly opposed the notion, that God had, as it were, altered his views respecting the sinner, in consequence of the death of Christ, ibid., F: Reconciliati sumus Deo, ut ait apostolus, per mortem Christi. Quod non sic intelligendum est, quasi nos ei sic reconciliaverat Christus, ut inciperet amare quos oderat, sicut reconciliatur inimicus inimico, ut deinde sint amici, qui ante se oderant, sed jam nos diligenti Deo reconciliati sumus. Non enim, ex quo ei reconciliati sumus per sanguinem filii, nos cæpit diligere, sed ante mundum priusquam nos aliquid essemus.- -Nevertheless he also admitted the doctrine of substitution, though he expressed himself respecting it in very general terms (as did Bernard of Clairval) ; loc. cit. D. [Thomasius Christi Person, iii. 232, quotes from the Lombard : Peccata nostra, i. e., pænam peccatorum nostrorum in corpore suo super lignum portasse, quia per ipsius pænam, quam in cruce tulit, omnis pæna temporalis, quæ pro peccato conversis debetur, in baptismo penitus relaxatur, ut nulla a baptizato exigatur et in pænitentia minoratur. Non enim sufficeret illa pæna, qua pænitentes ligat ecclesia, nisi pæna coöperaretur, qui pro nobis solvit.] (Baur, p. 213.) And lastly the devil occupied a very strange position in the system of Peter Lombard. (Quid fecit redemptor captivatori nostro ? tetendit ei muscipulum crucem suam: posuit ibi quasi escam sanguinem suum.) Baur, p. 211, comp. also p. 79. [On the views of Raymund Lulli, see Neander, Hist. Dogm. 581. Of Innocent III., Neander says (p. 583), that he was "the first who represented the satisfaction of Christ as a reconciliation between the divine attributes of mercy and justice :" Modum invenit, per quem utrique satisfaceret tam misericordiæ quam justitiæ : judicavit igitur, ut assumeret in se pænam pro omnibus et donaret per se gloriam universis. Sermo i. fol. 6, ed. Colon. 1575. “This,” adds
" Neander," was the first assertion of the satisfactio vicaria passiva among the schoolmen.” Neander also cites from William of Paris : Quid mirum est, Deum esse factum hominem, participatione humanæ naturæ, ut homo etiam fieret Deus, congruenti sibi participatione deitatis. The love of God must be revealed, that man may love God : Quia amor amore convenientius accenditur, sicut ignis igne, decuit Deum amorem nostrum amore suo accendere.] • Thus Alanus ab Insulis iii. (quoted by Pez, T. i. p. 493–97); Albertus
Magnus (Sent. Lib. ii. Dist. 20, Art. 7); Alexander Hales, in Summæ P. iii. Qu. 1, Membr. 4, ss., see Cramer, vii. p. 574, ss., Baur, p. 215, note. [Alexander, Summa, Pars iii. qu. 1. membrum 5, that man can not make satisfaction without the gift of grace: Membr. 6, that no creature could do it, being finite : Membr. 7, that only the Godman could do it: Ergo necesse est, quod satisficiat Deus, qui potest, et homo, qui debet, ergo debet satisfacere Deus homo, et non solus. Deus nec solus homo.] Bonaventura (Opp. T. v. p. 191, ss., ibid. p. 218, ss.)
Summæ Pars, iïi. Qu. 22, (de Sacerdotio Christi), quoted by Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 166. His theory of satisfaction will be found ibid. Qu. 46-49.* Baur, Versöhnungsl. p. 230, ss. He discussed especially the necessity of suffering, and the question, Whether God could have redeemed man in any other way? and replied to it both in the affirmative and negative, according to the idea formed of necessity. (Art. 2. Baur, p. 232.) At all events, the sufferings of Christ were the most proper way, and the one most to the purpose. It was also significant, that Christ suffered on the cross, which reminds us not only of the tree in Paradise, but also of this, that the cross is a symbol of various virtues, as well as of that breadth, and length, and depth, and height of which the apostle spoke (Eph. iii. 18), of our exaltation into heaven, etc. While Anselm did not go beyond the simple fact of Christ's death, Aquinas endeavored to demonstrate, that Christ endured in his head, hands, and feet, all the sufferings which men have to endure in their reputation, worldly possessions, body and soul, in head, hands, and feet; accordingly, the pain of the sufferings of Christ is by far the greatest which can be endured in the present life (in proof of which he adduced several arguments.) Nevertheless his soul possessed the uninterrupted enjoyment of blessedness, Art. 8, (but Thomas Aquinas himself did not as yet speak of the soul's enduring the torments of hell, or bearing the eternal curse, thus leaving the sufferings incomplete.) [But Aquinas considers this case of eternal punishment, also; and argues, that Christ need not, and could not, thus suffer; the dignity of his person, and his voluntary sacrifice were sufficient; see Thomasius, ubi supra, 236 sq. Christ suffered all that man deserved, " secundum genus," and not "secundum speciem."] He further propounded (like Bernard of Clairval) the mystical idea, according to which the head suffers for the members (Quæst. 48, art. 1.): Christus per suam passionem non solum sibi, sed etiam omnibus membris suis meruit salutem. Passio non est meritoria, inquantum habet principium ab exteriori, sed secundum quod eam aliquis voluntarie sustinet, sic habet principium ab interiori, et hoc modo est meritoria. -Thomas made use of the same mys
In Thomas Aquinas we also find (as the title indicates) the first hints about the threefold office of Christ, since he views him as legislator, sacerdos and rex. However, he does not use the expression munus, officium, and only develops the sacerdotium, showing how Christ was at once sacerdos and hostia perfecta. See Gieseler, Dogmengesch. 513. [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. I. 3, already recognizes the three offices, saying, that high priests, kings and prophets were anointed as types, having reference to the true Christ, the Logos, who is the only high priest of all, the only king of all creation, and the only arch-prophet of the prophets of the Father. Comp. Ebrard in Herzog's Realencyclop.]
tical idea to refute the objection that one being could not make satisfaction for a:rother; for, inasmnch as two are made one through love, the one may make satisfaction for the other. Concerning the meritum superabundans, Qu. 48, art. 2: Christus autem ex charitate et obedientia patiendo majus aliquid Deo exhibuit, quam exigeret recompensatio totius offensæ humani generis ; primo quidem propter magnitudinem charitatis, ex qua patiebatur; secundo propter dignitatem vitæ suæ, quam pro satisfactione ponebat, quæ erat vita Dei et hominis; tertio propter generalitatem passionis et magnitudinem doloris assumti.......... et ideo passio Christi non solum sufficiens, sed etiam superabundans satisfactio fuit pro peccatis humani generis (1 John ii. 2.) Respecting his further statements, see Baur, Versöhnungslehre, and Münscher, edit. by Von Cölln, p. 167. [Thomasius, ubi supra, 236 sq., and Ritschl, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theologie, 1860, p. 597 sq.]
Duns Scotus in Sont. L. Üï. Dist. 19: Quantum vero attinet ad meriti sufficientiam, fuit profecto illud finitum, quia causa ejus finita fuit, videlicet voluntas naturæ assumptæ, et summa gloria illi collata. Non enim Christus quatenus Deus meruit, sed in quantum homo. Proinde si exquiras, quantum valuerit Christi meritum secundum sufficientiam, valuit procul dubio quantum fuit a Deo acceptatum. Siquidem divina acceptatio est potissima causa et ratio omnis meriti...... Tantum valuit Christi meritum sufficienter, quantum potuit et voluit ipsum Trinitas acceptare, etc.— Thus he destroyed the principal argument of Anselm's theory in his Cur Deus Homo ! for, since Christ suffered only in his human nature, an angel, or any other man, might have suffered quite as well, as Duns Scotus was fully prepared to adinit. Comp. Baur, p. 256. On this account the sufferings of Christ appeared even less necessary to Scotus than they did to Thomas Aquinas. Both their systems are compared by Baur, Versöhnungsl. pp. 257, 258.Bonaventura occupied an intermediate position between the two former, by teaching a perfectio et plenitudo meriti Christi. Brev. iv. c. 7, Cent. iii. sect. 30. [The theory of Scotus was favored by nominalism. Clement VI sanctioned the Thomist theory in his jubilee bull of 1343. Baur. William Occam, the great reviver of nominalism, passes over the topic wholly in his commentary on the Lombard, and merely alludes to it in his Quodlibeta. The Spanish nominalist, Michael de Plaçois (in the 16th century), says: Mortem Christi non explevisse justitiam, sed solum explevisse ex magna condignitate-quod ad justitiæ æqualitatem attinet, tantum valorem habere oportuisse opera puri hominis, quantum habuerunt opera Christi, quia per se neutra sufficiebant. Quoted in Thomasius, ubi supra, p. 245. On Gabriel Biel, see ibid. p. 251 sq. On Duns Scotus, see Ritschl, in Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1860, p. 565 sq.]
• Wycliffe. Trialogus iii. c. 25 (De Incarnatione et Morte Christi), quoted by Baur, p. 273. [Dialog. lib. iii. cap. 25: Salvari enim oportet illum hominem (Adam), cum tam fructuose pænituit, et Deus non potest negare suam misericordiam taliter pænitenti. Et cum, juxta suppositionem tertiam, oportet, quod satisfactio pro peccato fiat, ideo oportet, quod idem illud genus hominis tantum satisfaciat, quantum in prothoplasto deliquerat, quod nullus homo facere poterat, nisi simul fuerat Deus et homo.....,. Et fuit necessa
rium, ipsam acceptum fuisse in ligno, ut sicut ex fructu ligni vetito periit homo, sic ex fructu ligni passo salvetur homo. Et sunt aliæ multæ congruentiæ utrobique.] He laid, however, quite as much stress upon repentance as upon the theory of satisfaction. According to Wessel, Christ was our Redeemer, even by representing in himself the divine life (an idea which had almost wholly sunk into oblivion since the time of Anselm.) Nevertheless he was also Mediator; yea, he was God, priest, and sacrifice at the same time. We see in him both the God who was reconciled, and the one who brought about that reconciliation. Comp. De Magnitud. Passionis, c. 17, and Exempla Scalæ Meditationis, Ex. iii. p. 391 ; quoted by Ullmann, p. 261, Baur, p. 277. “ Wessel, too, considered the sufferings of our Lord as being made by a substitute ; but going beyond the merely external and legal transaction, he asserted the necessity of a living faith, and the appropriation of the Spirit of Christ :" Ullmann, p. 264. He attached, therefore (as
( did Abelard and Peter Lombard), great importance to the principle of love. He who would form a correct estimate of the full measure of the sufferings of Christ, must come to them, above all, with an eye exercised in love; De Magnit. Passionis, p. 19. Further passages may be seen in the works of Ullmann and Baur. 10 The emotional contemplation of the sufferings of Christ, and expressions
" the blood of Jesus, full of love, and red like a rose” (e. g. in the writings of Suso), may, indeed, be traced to mysticism. But the true mystics did not rest satisfied with this. Thus the author of the “ Deutsche Theologie," c. 3, after having proved that God had assumed humanity in order to remove the effects of the fall, thus continues : “Though God were to take to himself all men who exist, and to assume their nature, and be incarnated in them, and make them divine in him, yet, if the same did not take place with regard to myself, my fall and rebellion would never be destroyed.”—In more distinct reference to the design of the sufferings of Christ, Tauler said in a sermon on Luke x. 23, quoted by Wackernagel, Lesebuch i. sp. 868): “Since your great God was thus set at nought, and condemned by his creatures, and was crucified and died, you should, with patient endurance, and with all suffering humility, behold yourselves in his sufferings, and have your minds thereby impressed.” Compare also his Sermons, i. p. 289 (Sermon on Good Friday.)—Bishop Master Albrecht said : “ Four-and-twenty hours compose day and night; take one of the hours and divide it into two, and spend it in contemplating the sufferings of our Lordthat wbich is better and more useful to man than if all men, and all the saints, and all the angels of God, and Mary, the mother of God, should remember him [i. e., should intercede for him.] As man dies a bodily death, so he dies unto all sin, by serious meditation on the sufferings of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Sprüche deutscher Mystiker, in Wackernagels Lesebuch, sp. 889.)—But not only did the mystics urge the necessity of recalling the sufferings of Christ by inward contemplation, but the same idea was also externally represented by the self-inflicted torments of ascetics, especially of the Flagellantes of the middle ages. In the latter case it must, however, be admitted, that as the spirit of self-righteousness was called forth, the merits of Christ were thrown into the shade. Thus, it is said, in one of the hymns
of the Flagellantes (A, D. 1349): "Through God we shed our blood, on account of which our sins will be pardoned.” (Hoffmann, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenliedes, p. 94.)
1 The Beghards taught : Christus non est passus pro nobis, sed pro se ipso. (Mosheim, p. 256.) Almarich of Bena maintained, that by all Christians being members of Christ, we are to understand, that, as such, they participated in the sufferings of Christ on the cross. (Engelhardt, p. 253.)
p Thus he inverted the doctrine according to which the head died for the members (that of Bernard of Clairval, and Thomas Aquinas.)
1 Jacob de Theramo, who lived in the fourteenth century (1382) treated the transaction between Christ and Belial (the devil) in the form of a judicial process; this was translated into German in the 15th century, under the title: "Hie hept sich an ein Rechtsbuoch ;" comp. W. Wackernagel, Die altdeutschen Handschriften der Baseler Universitätsbibliothek, 1835, 4to. pp. 62, 89. Baur, (relying on Döderlein's Diss. Inauguralis, 1774-5, in his Opusc. Academ. Jena, 1789), calls it a carnival play ; but it is not so, the subject is intended to be treated in an earnest spirit. Compare a similar drama: Extractio Animarum ab Inferno, in the English Miracle-Plays or Mysteries, by W. Marriott. Bas. 1838, p. 161. [Comp. Karl Hase, das geistliche Schauspiel, 1858.]
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN SOTERIOLOGY AND CHRISTOLOGY.
Julius Müller in the Deutsche Zeitschrift f. christl. Wissenschaft. Oct. 1850.
In the theory of Anselm, so much importance was attached to the incarnation and death of Jesus, as the foundation of the work of redemption, that there was danger lest the wonderful life of the Redeemer, which lies between the two, should lose its religious significance. There were, however, those who again directed attention to the life of the Godman, as itself having a redeeming power.' Some, indeed, made it appear that Christ came into the world only in order to die, and that consequently he would not have been sent at all if there had been no sin to atone. On the other hand, others, e. g. Wessel, pointed out in various ways the significance which the manifestation of God in the flesh must have, independently of sin and its effects, as the keystone of creation, and crown of humanity.'
· See Wessel in the preceding &, note 9.
Comp. vol. i. 8 64. “ The question, whether Christ would have assumed the nature of man if there had been no sin, was not discussed until the middle ages, being started, as it appears, for the first time by Rupertus, Abbot of